[blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Harald Skjæran]

On 02/04/07, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> > Herman De Wael:
> >
> >> The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the
> >> main drawbacks I see is this one:
> >>
> >> Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points
> >> and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not
> >> create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)?
> >
> > Richard Hills:
> >
> > Okay, let me see if I can follow Herman's objection.  He seems to be
> > suggesting that it is a "main drawback" to improve a _bad_ scoring
> > method to a _better_ scoring method because a _best_ scoring method
> > is not being adopted instead.  Ergo, Herman seems to be arguing that
> > zero improvement is preferable to partial improvement.
> >
> > Well, at least I cannot answer this De Wael argument with my constant
> > cry of "petitio principii".  Perhaps "reductio ad absurdum"?
> >
> > :-)
> >
>
> Yes indeed. Getting changes like this adopted by committees who are
> basically conservative is a lot of work. No need to do half jobs then.
> The main point this is trying to "solve" is the rounding. There is
> then no need to go to a system that just puts the rounding in another
> place. First you need to see if rounding is really that bad, and if
> you think it is, do away with it altogether!
>
> My main point of contention with the current system of counting is
> that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any
> non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. And the
> complications are there to solve problems that existed in the past,
> but no longer apply today. Why indeed do we want to have a 30-point
> VP-scale? We clearly don't want to just tally wins and losses, that's
> certain. But why limit a win to 25? In a good competition, everybody
> plays everybody, and with the same boards! So why not do away with a
> scale that is basically just a linear transformation from the
> IMP-difference.
>
> And then to go one better - do we really need the IMP-transformations?
> Yes, we do, because we feel that the scoring table overvalues games
> and slams in realtion to overtricks. But could we not do the same by
> altering the scoring table instead?
>
> I believe that for the sake of simplicity, a few small changes in the
> scoring table should be accepted, making all further translations
> (IMPs and VPs) unnecessary. You could come off the table, add all your
> total points, and compare with the total points from the other table
> and decide you've won the match by 370 points!

That's really going back to the stone age (1930's).
If you don't make a major change in the scoring table, this means that
the big boards (slams and zip numbers from contract going several down
doubled) will weigh far more than they do in todays IMP scale, where
in fact overtricks and small differences are overvalued.

IMO, todays IMP scale is rather OK when it comes to how the scores are
differentiated. Using decimals is OK to me.

The main point in converting to VP's is to put a limit on how much you
can score by trounching one opponent. The VP scale works fine in this
regard, but there's a small problem with the steps (decimals would
work better even here, I agree).

I believe we'll always want to have different types of scoring
(MP/IMP's/other). Thus I don't think it's a great idea to change the
scoring table to avoid conversion to MP/IMP/other.

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran


>
>
> --
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://www.hdw.be
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>